Institutions, especially those steeped in history and tradition, often need and deserve change.

That has been true of the country’s three branches of federal government since the first days of the Constitution. Over the years, the House of Representatives capped its membership at 435, the Senate moved to direct election and presidents have been limited to two terms. And those are just some of the most obvious changes.

Today, it is the Supreme Court most often in the spotlight. The push for change divides sharply along party lines. Democrats tend to want a new look for the highest court, Republicans are shocked that so sacrosanct an institution could be changed.

Republicans can dispense with the histrionics. Since the court first met in 1790, it is Republicans who often have succeeded in bringing the biggest changes to the court. Abraham Lincoln expanded court membership to safeguard his Civil War era policies from court intervention; after Lincoln’s assassination, Republicans in Congress led the charge to return to the nine-member court to thwart Andrew Johnson’s more lenient views on Reconstruction.

More recently, Republicans in 2016 reduced membership on the Supreme Court from nine justices to eight. Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, used blatant partisanship to keep open the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The Court’s membership stood at eight for more than a year.

Three years later, in another callous exercise of political strength, McConnell did a 180-degree flip after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Amy Coney Barrett was appointed and confirmed in little more than five weeks.

Today, the Democratic reform centers on legislation introduced in July by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). Whitehouse and his co-sponsors, all Democrats, are proposing that a new justice would take the bench every two years and spend 18 years participating in all Supreme Court cases. The nine justices appointed through this process would hear all cases brought under the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. These are the cases that come to the court from a lower court and typically are the most consequential and controversial. The cases on the constitutional right to abortion, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and campaign spending limits, Citizens United v. FEC, are two examples.

After 18 years of service, justices would move to what amounts to senior status. They would participate only in the constitutionally-required “original jurisdiction” cases. These cases, relatively few, are those that come directly to the Supreme Court and often involve disputes between the states or between a state and the federal government.

Whitehouse’s bill requires presidents to nominate a person to the Supreme Court within 120 days of the beginning of the first and third years of their four-year terms. The Senate retains the power of advice and consent. However, if the Senate does a “McConnell” and refuses to act, the nominee automatically is confirmed.

The court appointed as Whitehouse proposes has its merits, not least of which is that it is more likely to reflect the partisan mood of the country. If in place today, the Supreme Court likely would have a 5-4 liberal-conservative split at the end of Trump’s second term (five justices appointed by Presidents Obama and Biden, four by Trump). The party that wins the White House in 2028 would determine the court’s majority over the next four years, reflecting the mood of a country that just elected a president.

The proposal also would diminish the adverse consequences of the longevity of justices. The age of a nominee is an increasingly important criterion in evaluating potential nominees. The last three justices, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett, averaged about 50 years old when they were appointed. Even the most well-qualified candidate isn’t likely to make the cut if he or she is 55 or older.

The argument for lifetime appointments goes back to the country’s founding. Alexander Hamilton and others argued a lifetime term was the only assurance of independence from political pressure. If justices had to face reappointment, Hamilton feared there would be a “danger of an improper complaisance” to the president.

Fair point. But when Hamilton wrote his warning, many men didn’t live to celebrate their 70th birthday. Today, with longer lifespans, justices serve for decades. The ever-younger nominees means that the time between court vacancies, now about three years and growing, will assure that many presidential terms expire without a new face on the court.

In spite of the GOP tradition of reforming the court both overtly and underhanded, as McConnell did, the bill is fiercely opposed by most Republicans. Mainly the opposition is partisan, but there are constitutional questions. Although members who serve out their 18 years remain on the court, their involvement would be limited, calling into question whether the Constitution actually dictates a lifetime appointment and, if so, would Whitehouse’s workaround satisfy the provision.

The bill is worthy of debate, even if it has no chance in the foreseeable future. The bill isn’t likely to garner the Senate votes needed to pass and if it did there is no chance President Trump, in the last two years of his last term, would sign the legislation.

In many ways, the legislation is a reflection of Congress’s own shortcomings, not just those of the Supreme Court. Congress could simply do what it should be doing all along - excercising its own constitutional authority. If Congress acted as a co-equal branch of government it could tackle some of the issues that are causes for concern by court-watchers. For example, Congress could and should impose a strict ethics code on members of the Supreme Court. Objecting to a code of ethics is much harder politically than opposing complicated and comprehensive reform.

More than that, if members of Congress don’t like how courts interpret laws or the Constitution, they could follow the advice of one court observer: “Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.”

The call to arms came from no less an expert than the late Justice Scalia.

Illustration: KQED

Millions of dollars will be spent by U.S. Senate candidates Peggy Flanagan and Michele Tafoya and outside groups between now and Nov. 3. And for what purpose? Mostly, to promote political division and seek an electoral edge by separating blue from red, rural from urban, men from women and young from old. And always to make voters angry and keep them outraged.

Political campaigns certainly have room for candidates to draw distinctions or tout aspirational goals. Of course, Tafoya should call out the rampant fraud in Minnesota safety net programs and question Flanagan’s ability to manage taxpayer dollars. And by all means, Flanagan’s support for Medicare for All is a legitimate response to a health system that is too expensive and delivers too little. But let’s move on. Having staked out those issues, candidates should do better than devote most of their time and attention to an issue not especially germane to the work of the U.S. Senate (Tafoya) or not likely to become law anytime soon (Flanagan).

A case in point is Social Security. Before her term ends, the 2026 winner will have to confront the program’s insolvency. By 2032 if not before, Social Security will be forced to reduce benefits by up to 24%. If Flanagan and Tafoya think voters are angry today, imagine the electorate’s mood in 2032 when this year’s winner faces her first re-election at the same time Minnesotans are being hit with a reduction in their retirement benefits of one-fifth or more.

Changes won’t be easy and any reform will draw intense opposition. That is exactly why campaigns should engage voters today in the solutions that will be needed tomorrow.

There is a bipartisan model for reform. In 1983, President Ronald Reagan signed a Social Security reform package that put the program on solid economic footing. Importantly, the legislation made no changes to the projected benefits of older workers close to retirement. It did raise the age for workers to receive their full benefits from 65 to 67, but implemented the change over a 17-year period giving younger workers a long lead time to adjust. The reform package also infused the trust fund with more money, increasing the ceiling on income subject to Social Security taxes.

Tafoya and Flanagan should have candid conversations with voters about the fixes needed to shore up Social Security and the reforms they might support. Would Flanagan support eliminating the cap on income subject to Social Security’s 12.4% tax or even raise estate taxes to bolster the trust fund as some on the left have urged? And where does Tafoya stand on the frequent calls from Republicans to privatize Social Security, allowing workers to invest their own accounts as they see fit?

There are few public programs more important to working families than Social Security. Voters deserve transparency on the changes Tafoya and Flanagan might support. The day of reckoning is coming soon for Social Security. Time isn’t an ally of reform-minded senators elected in 2026, but neither is it fatal if education and engagement start now.

Immigration reform is another conversation that needs to transition from the here and now to the when and what. Flanagan is right that we should be angry over the abusive ICE surge and the attacks on U.S. citizens and those with a legal right to be in the country. But Tafoya also is justified in her indignation over those who seek the benefits of U.S. residency and then commit serious crimes.

Anger alone, though, doesn’t secure the border, maintain a critical workforce or keep families together. Americans have turned on the Trump Administration’s immigration policies and for good reason. They are ineffective and often abhorrent. The call for better and broader strategies will only grow louder.

Once again, there are models for Tafoya and Flanagan to use as catalysts for thoughtful discussions. In 1986, the Immigration Control and Reform Act became law. It is the last time Congress created a pathway to legal residency in the U.S. for undocumented immigrants who have obeyed the law since their crossing. Like Social Security reform, the immigration law was signed into law by Reagan.

More recently, in 2013, current Secretary of State Marco Rubio was a U.S. senator from Florida and a key member of the bipartisan congressional “Gang of Eight” that crafted immigration legislation. The bill addressed most of the hot buttons of today’s debate, including border security. It passed the Senate 68-32, but fell short in the Republican House.

Tafoya rightly can argue that border security was a failure under President Biden. Flanagan can make the case that today’s enforcement policies are too expensive and too arbitrary to be realistic long-term solutions. Both are right, but neither provides a long-term fix. Minnesota - a state that has been especially favored by immigrants - deserves a senator who leads by investing in the future, not demonizing the past.

The Minnesota Senate contest has become unexpectedly more consequential in deciding which party will control the Senate. Democrat Flanagan begins the general election campaign for Minnesota’s open U.S. Senate seat as the polling leader, but certainly not the prohibitive favorite. A KSTP-TV survey gives her a 5-point lead with 11% undecided. Small wonder that Republicans are more optimistic about the prospects of their candidate, Tafoya, than they have felt about a race in years.

The deciding voters may well be those in the middle. Many moderates are concerned that if elected, Tafoya will become little more than another Republican rubber stamp for Trump. Others question whether Flanagan with her embrace of Sen. Bernie Sanders becomes another senator finding more value in making a statement than in making a difference.

Flanagan and Tafoya can spend the next 11 weeks trying to convince voters each is the lesser of two evils. Or, they can rise above politics-as-usual and lead. They can use their millions of dollars and the national spotlight that may shine on Minnesota to build momentum for solutions to two of the biggest challenges that will face the Senate during their first term.

Tafoya and Flanagan are competing for the Senate seat to which Republican Dave Durenberger was elected in 1978 and, before him, Democrat Hubert H. Humphrey. As candidates, they were both students and teachers. Politicians like Humphrey and Durenberger spent much of their election campaigns listening to voters and engaging them in the complexities and trade-offs of public policy.

Minnesota and the country would be well-served were Flanagan and Tafoya to emulate their predecessors.

(This article originally was published in the Minneapolis Times.)

Minnesota will elect its first female governor. Even more significant for a state facing strong economic headwinds and fundamental questions about the role and reach of government, the winner should emerge from a campaign that likely will be more substantive than many Minnesotans have endured in recent years.

The outcome of the gubernatorial primary gives Minnesota the best possible matchup of candidates who can be expected to thoughtfully and effectively represent their very different philosophies.That’s not to say there won’t be a full measure of negative ads and attacks by surrogates, especially on hot-button issues like fraud and social issues. But Amy Klobuchar and Lisa Demuth mostly are positive people who understand government and public policy. The contrast will be sharp and the differences clear. But the distinctions are likely to be drawn in language that seeks to build, not tear down.

The Senate race almost certainly will be more intensely partisan and the campaigns - fueled by outside money - more negative than the gubernatorial contest.

Peggy Flanagan, buoyed by a record voter turnout, scored an unexpectedly large win over U.S. Rep. Angie Craig. Craig could never shake the attacks that she was too supportive of ICE and too cozy with corporate donors. To her credit, Flanagan was able to leverage the anger of many Minnesotans over the ICE surge earlier this year. In particular she was able to engage many voters - especially younger ones - who aren’t typical participants in primary elections.

Flanagan also emerged from the primary relatively unscathed. Craig never launched a full-on attack tying Flanagan to the Walz Administration and the fraud in safety net programs. Michelle Tafoya, winner of the Republican primary, won’t be so kind.

Both Flanagan and Tafoya probably will take a step or two toward the center. Not giant steps for either, mind you. Flanagan will stick to her Bernie Sanders agenda of Medicare for All and Tafoya will continue to hew closely to the MAGA party line. But outside groups will do all they can to convince voters that Flanagan and Tafoya are little more than Minnesota-lite versions of New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and President Donald Trump.

Both Flanagan and Tafoya enter the general election with a fractured base. The enthusiasm of DFL voters reflected in Tuesday’s primary turnout and the eagerness of Democrats to elect a Senate that will be an effective brake to the abuses of Trump give Flanagan a better chance at healing the rifts and creating unity.

Tafoya has a bigger battle. She has been at odds with the most conservative of Republicans. The GOP-endorsed candidate Adam Schwarze adamantly said he would not support Tafoya if he lost the primary. Now, in fairness, a person who loses the primary by 28% doesn’t carry a lot of political cache, but statewide Republican candidates can’t afford to lose a single vote from their core constituency. Recent history is not an ally of GOP Senate candidates. Democrats Tina Smith and Klobuchar have won their last five elections by an average of 13%.

Still, Tafoya will be a formidable opponent. She is articulate, if not fully up to speed in the issues. And, there are cracks in the DFL hold on the Senate seats. Two years ago in Klobuchar’s Senate re-election campaign, her incomparably inept Republican opponent Royce White still managed to flip 30 counties from Klobuchar’s 2018 win. Imagine how a visit from President Trump could energize MAGA and fill Tafoya’s coffers. Yes, a visit from Trump brings negatives, but at the right time in the right place, it would be well worth the downside.

Two final thoughts:

The endorsement process suffered another blow. For the first time in decades, Republicans turned their backs on the gubernatorial and Senate candidates endorsed by the state convention. The Democratic candidates fared better, with both of the top two endorsed candidates winning, but the DFL has had its own history of voters rejecting endorsed candidates. Klobuchar becomes the first endorsed Democrat to survive a primary for an open gubernatorial seat since Wendy Anderson in 1970.

Unfortunately, the party system of caucuses and conventions has more lives than the Phoenix. Just like the mythical creature, party endorsements sometimes burst into flames and leave only ashes behind. Yet, somehow, the same creature is reborn. Why? Because it gives the parties a measure of significance and control. Changes aren’t likely.

And, a positive note to counter political cynicism. Minnesotans are going to love Ben Schierer the more they get to know him. The two-term mayor of Fergus Falls is Klobuchar’s lieutenant governor candidate and is likely to have a prominent campaign role especially outside of the Twin Cities. Schierer is smart, he understands rural Minnesota and has a track record of success. More importantly, he is a down-to-earth, decent person of integrity.

The second banana on a gubernatorial ticket doesn’t often get the spotlight. By nature, Schierer isn’t one to push himself into public attention. But he will grow on Minnesotans and remind voters that there are many politicians who are in the business for all the right reasons.

_{Credit: Vitalii Vodolazskyi - stock.adobe.com}

It’s no surprise that the cost of cost of health care is at the top of affordability concerns for many Americans. Premiums and out-of-pocket costs are increasing, the ranks of those without health coverage are growing and rural communities are losing critical health services and even seeing their hospitals close. The Minnesota Hospital Association estimates that 30% or more of the state’s hospitals are in financial distress.

Health care is about one-fifth of the U.S. economy; health care spending is nearly $6 trillion a year. For all that spending, the health of Americans ranks last among 10 wealthy peer nations according to the Commonwealth Fund. Then there is the perceived greed of insurance companies and the seemingly arbitrary denial of coverage that rankles everyone.

These realities have made health care a central issue in this year’s political campaigns. Candidates from the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party are touting Medicare for All. Republicans mostly are stuck on retrenchment, promising deeper cuts in subsidies for Obamacare (Affordable Care Act) and reducing eligibility for Medicaid.

These positions ignore the reality of politics and the complexity of the health care system. In the case of Medicare for All, passage faces a Mount Everest of political obstacles, including the unlikely prospect of obtaining the required 60 votes in a Senate that in 2027, and for years beyond, will be closely divided.

Republicans also have a political quagmire. The health crisis is real; their solutions aren’t. Republicans are practicing political malpractice if their health policies stay rooted in reducing access to care, raising consumer costs and forcing the closure of small hospitals in communities around the country, including Minnesota.

Then there is this reality: trust in the dysfunctional federal government is at an all-time low. Congressional redesign of the health system inherently is a partisan process with decisions influenced as much - and sometimes more - by politics than good health policy. Are consumers willing to accept benefit plans that eliminate coverage for abortion and other reproductive health care as is the case with insurance coverage for active-duty military? How about shifting more costs to consumers, as President Trump recently proposed with Medicare drug coverage? Put decisions that affect the lives of Americans in the hands of Congress and decisions defined by politics are the result.

There is an alternative to waiting for congressional action. Health reformers, both Democrats and Republicans, should look to the states. States long have been seen as the laboratories for democracy and innovation. They led the way on issues like workers compensation, unemployment insurance, aid to dependent children and a host of other essential safety-net programs.

Intentionally turning to the states to lead on health reform will take political backbone. President Trump and Congress will have to give up control. That won’t be an easy task, especially for Trump who has been hostile to federalism, preferring to control everything from Washington.

There also are legal and regulatory hurdles to state-created reforms, some political, some legal. Medicare, which covers almost one-out-of-five Americans with health insurance, is a federal program. Much of what shapes the health system today is tucked into the federal tax code or regulatory structure. The largest consumer health care subsidy is the tax exemption for employer-provided health insurance. Oversight of private health plans is split between states (overseeing mostly individual and small group plans) and the federal government (coverage offered by most large employers). The list of federal influence and control of health care is long.

Looking to the states will not produce comprehensive reform. But if Congress is a willing partner, adopting policy changes, waivers and grants to turn loose the innovation of states, the states can show the way forward.

Over the years, Minnesota has shown what is possible in health leadership. In the 1970s, Minnesota’s Comprehensive Health Association made it possible for people with pre-existing health conditions to obtain affordable coverage in the marketplace. In the 1990s, MinnesotaCare filled the gap for workers who were self-employed or worked for businesses that didn’t offer health insurance and who earned too much to qualify for Medicaid but too little to afford individual insurance. The state’s Obamacare insurance exchange has been one of the best and most affordable in the country. Minnesota has demonstrated the possible while Congress has been mired in the unreasonable.

Whether by states or Congress, the system reforms needed are a heavy lift. Health costs have to be controlled and bending the curve won’t be easy. It’s not as simple as eliminating the politically-easy targets of insurance salaries and administrative overhead. Not all overhead expenses are wasteful. Coordinating care among different providers, even within the same system, is both expensive and an essential administrative task, for example.

Then there is the challenge of only paying for quality. Not to throw cold water on insurance haters, but the system needs gatekeepers. Not every test, treatment or procedure ordered by a doctor is warranted. Occasionally, someone has to say no for reasons of quality and cost-effectiveness. Who will be the gatekeeper?

Some changes may test the limits of both the marketplace and political ideologies. Should government price controls be considered, for example? Some proposals from the left and right propose cost limits on drugs. Should cost controls be extended to what doctors, hospitals and other providers charge different payers? Perhaps reforms should include a federal or a multi-state billing clearinghouse that could identify providers who have unwarranted high costs. Such a process would reduce overhead and stay ahead of fraud, but it raises issues of privacy and would reflect a massive change in how doctors, hospitals and other providers bill for their services.

There are advantages to putting states in the lead. It bypasses congressional gridlock and at least takes some first steps. State-led reform puts all the thorny decisions closer to those affected, including consumers, doctors, hospitals, employers and others.

Minnesota has a long history of policymakers who understand the complexity of health care. Democratic Senate candidates Angie Craig and Peggy Flanagan offer very different opinions in an interview by Minnesota StarTribune editorial columnist Jill Burcum, but both “will arrive in Washington more engaged on this issue than a lot of sitting senators,” as Burcum, a thoughtful analyst of health policy herself, concluded. (https://www.startribune.com/angie-craig-peggy-flanagan-us-senate-race-mn-primary-voter-guide/601875923)

Health reform is urgent. Time is not an ally of families struggling with access to care. The rate of Minnesotans without insurance is at its highest level in a decade and growing, especially among children. Many more people have policies with such high out-of-pocket costs that they are effectively priced out of receiving care for all but the most catastrophic episodes.

Minnesota candidates for governor and Congress who emerge from Tuesday’s primary could lead the nation by changing the terms of the debate from specific (but politically unattainable) reforms to who decides (giving states the lead).

(Photo: Bridge Michigan)

Even by the frenetic and often baffling standards of the Trump Administration, the last week or so has been “interesting” as in the way Minnesotans often say, “Well, THAT’S interesting.” A few of the highlights:

Intelligence sources have provided credible evidence that Russia is giving Iran critical information to target U.S. military assets in the Mideast. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told Congress that Russia and China are “enabling some of the things Iran is doing.” President Trump has his own take on the issue. He responded as only Donald Trump could, and with a straight face no less: “We’ll find out if that’s true. I’ll ask (Russian President Vladimir) Putin about it.” While he’s at it, maybe Putin could tell Trump where Iran’s enriched uranium is being hidden.

Yet another Trump lackey who willingly weaponized the justice system to kowtow to the President has had her legal machinations blow up in her face. Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. District Attorney for Washington, D.C., last month ignored evidence and charged 67-year-old David Hearn with vandalism of the Big Beautiful Reflecting Pool. At the charging press conference, Pirro spoke to an audience of one, the President: “But make no mistake, making D.C. beautiful is a priority. And if you damage, vandalize or do anything to impact something like the reflective pool, you can be prosecuted.” Oops. The government had to dismiss the case, acknowledging that the pool’s problems were the result of poor work by the contractors. In April, Trump said the no-bid contract was given to “a guy who’s unbelievable at doing swimming pools.” In May, he said he had nothing to do with awarding the contract. In June, news media reported that a contract went to a company owned by a Trump financial supporter. Wonder if Trump still admits to knowing Pirro.

And speaking of lackeys, Trump’s personal attorney and sometime acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, ran into a hornet’s nest of Senate opposition to his confirmation. Seems even some Republicans oppose the Blanche-approved deal that would protect the President, his family and his family’s businesses from charges of tax fraud for all misdeeds at any time in the past - a golden ticket absolving the Trump clan of $100 million or more in penalties, according to experts. But the fight over Blanche isn’t just about Trump. It’s about Trump’s righting of multiple wrongs. On Saturday, not only did Trump promise to keep Blanche as acting AG, but said on Truth Social the $1.8 “anti-weaponization” fund “will immediately be back on the table, and I will get it done.” This slush fund would be used to compensate those who Trump considers victims of the judicial misconduct of the Biden and Obama Administrations. That presumably includes the Jan 6 rioters who damaged the Capitol, injured 140 law enforcement officers and sought to block the constitutional transfer of power. Who knows, maybe Eric and Don Jr. also are in line for another payday.

Several Minnesota water systems were victimized by cyber attacks that some intelligence experts attributed to Iran. Not the case, said Trump. “You know who’s behind it?” asked Trump. “Minnesota, because they’re grossly incompetent. I think the governor’s behind it. I don’t think there was an Iranian cyberattack.” Meanwhile, the FBI said water systems in at least seven states were hit. Just look at the mischief Gov. Walz can get into when he’s not a candidate for anything.

Trump hosted a rally for Michigan auto workers last week where he did another one of his awkward dances and made an odd (and cognitively impaired) claim: Trump said his father, who was diagnosed with dementia in his 80s, “didn’t want planes — they didn’t have planes in those days.” Fred Trump was born two years after the Wright brothers’ flight and died in 1999. President Trump’s statement is all the more bizarre given his 2019 Independence Day speech in which he praised the Continental Army for securing airports during the Revolutionary War. Seems a misuse of the small and beleaguered army’s resources to protect airports when there were no planes. On the other hand, his 2019 July 4th speech was more coherent than this year’s ramble.

The President also celebrated “a HISTORIC agreement for the COMPLETE DISARMAMENT” of Hamas. Unfortunately, other parties to the deal were not in the same celebratory mood. Both Hamas and Israel distanced themselves from the 15-point Board of Peace plan. Meanwhile, Iran is expanding the war throughout the Mideast using miracle missiles and drones. They must be miraculous because just a few weeks ago Trump claimed were “utterly demolished.” Trump said Iran is “begging” for a deal even as it escalates the war. Turns out Iran’s biggest threat to world stability is not its “obliterated” nuclear capabilities, but its control of the Strait of Hormuz. Who knew? Well, except for every military expert ignored by Trump.

Finally - and in a case of burying the lead - Dr. Andrew Fauci again is being pilloried by Republicans and Trump. The release of his diaries and the further release of out-of-context quotes are offered by partisans as evidence the Fauci of 2020 said one thing publicly and another privately. All of this to provide an alternative narrative to the most important Covid story, the failed leadership of Donald Trump. In spite of privately calling the emerging pandemic “deadly,” he flipped and flopped on social distancing and closing public places, he ignored the urgency of testing and contact tracing, made states compete on price for medical equipment instead of a national allocation strategy based on need and promoted ridiculous theories and cures. Today, Ebola deaths in West Africa are growing five times faster than any previous outbreak. Should that or any other pandemic enter the U.S., the country is no better prepared to manage the crisis than it was under Trump in 2020. Remember, the U.S. has had more Covid deaths than any other country. How long before Fauci replaces Joe Biden as the go-to scapegoat for every Trump failure?

Quite a week, even by Trumpian standards. Maybe something good will come from it. Maybe David Hearn, exonerated for vandalism, will receive judicial weaponization compensation.

All elections are important, but if you want your vote to matter most, participate in Minnesota’s primary election. Every vote is much more influential in August than in November.

Consider this: In the last gubernatorial election, 2022, about 1.5 million Minnesotans cast ballots. In the last primary for an open gubernatorial seat, 2018, there were 321,000 votes for Republicans and 583,000 votes for Democratic candidates. Those totals are in spite of ballots in 2018 that included a well-known former governor on the GOP side and three credible, long time contenders among the Democrats.

Put those totals into the politics of 2026. The winner of the three-way Republican contest might need fewer than 125,000 votes. In the high-stakes race to be the Democratic nominee for the Senate, 300,000 votes almost certainly will be enough.

Minnesota’s political primaries are as confusing as they are important. Too many people think they don’t matter, that one has to publicly declare partisan allegiance in order to cast a ballot or that a vote in August dictates how one votes in the November election. None of that is true.

The same eligibility rules for the general election in November apply to primary voters, including same-day registration (voting requirements are available at https://www.sos.mn.gov/elections-voting/register-to-vote/). Minnesota does not require party registration to vote in primaries or in November. In November, a voter can cast a ballot for the candidate of one party in the gubernatorial race and a candidate of another party in a congressional race, for example. Not so in the primary. You can only vote in one party’s primary. However, your vote remains secret and the choices you make in the primary do not limit your November selections.

And that brings us to a recommendation. I am voting in the Democratic primary. If today’s Republican Party were the party of my first decades in politics and the GOP candidate were of the caliber of my former boss Dave Durenberger, I would still be on that side of the ledger. That is not the case, and hasn’t been so for many years. The Republican Party exists in name only; in every other way, it is the Trump Party and that is unacceptable to me.

I also will vote in the Democratic primary because I believe it includes the most important contested race in either party this year. Yes, the Republicans have a spirited gubernatorial contest but, frankly, it is unlikely any of the contenders will beat Amy Klobuchar.

Angie Craig, my choice, winning over Peggy Flanagan makes a difference. Craig has shown her ability to get things done since first being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2018. She has played a key role on significant legislation from health care to agriculture. Her experience as a Minnesota business executive is an enormous asset in a Congress increasingly populated by those who have lived mostly political lives.

Craig has proven to be a collaborator who can work across the aisle. The well-respected Lugar Bipartisan Index ranks her in the top 20% of all House members. She embodies the essence of the index: “Embracing bipartisanship does not require leaders to alter their political principles or support policy proposals that they fundamentally oppose. But it does require them to ensure that their responsibility to govern is not paralyzed by their ideology or undercut by their pursuit of partisan political advantage.”

Sometimes, collaboration goes too far and legislators cast a vote or two that he or she comes to regret. Liberal icon Paul Wellstone, facing a tough reelection in 1996, voted against marriage equality, a decision he questioned later in his career. So, too, Craig has a cringe-worthy vote: her support in 2024 for the Laken Riley Act that expanded federal immigration authority. Although the bill is not as sweeping as Flanagan claims, Craig has acknowledged it was the wrong decision and has worked since to hold ICE accountable to the Constitution, the rule of law and common decency.

There is another reason to support Craig. She can win. Typically, voters can take a long-term perspective on electing senators. They serve for six years and it often takes time for a new member to grow into the role. The luxury of time doesn’t exist today. President Trump is doing more damage to the country and the world by the day. His last two years in office will be devastating if he is not reined in by Congress. It seems likely the House will be narrowly Democratic; the Senate probably will be evenly divided, a slight edge one way or the other. The country needs senators who are able to build coalitions across the aisle to hold Trump in check. The country can’t afford senators eager to stand alone on small islands of unachievable dreams. Craig is far more likely than the more partisan and intensely liberal Flanagan to be an effective senator in building the coalitions that will hold Trump in check.

Minnesota politics are changing - the red districts have become much more red than the blue districts have turned blue. In 2024, Royce White - probably the worst statewide candidate ever nominated by the major parties - still was able to flip 30 counties from blue to red against Amy Klobuchar, arguably the most popular Minnesota politician of the day. Yes, having Trump on the ticket in 2024 helped the GOP. But Flanagan and her ties to the deeply unpopular Gov. Tim Walz run the risk of energizing the Republican base in 2026. Minnesota and the country can’t afford another MAGA senator or one so far to the other extreme that she will be in a small group of those more interested in making a statement when they should be making a difference.

Angie Craig will be a difference-maker in the U.S. Senate. But she won’t have that opportunity if she doesn’t win the primary Aug. 11 (early voting already has begun). The contest between her and Flanagan is extremely close, with the outcome likely decided by a small handful of votes. You can make the difference by making a statement with your ballot.

(This article was published in Minneapolis Times July 23.)

(Illustration from Axios)

Minnesota keeps suffering abuse at the hands of Donald Trump. In ways obvious and subtle (but no less important), President Trump keeps delivering on his promise to Minnesotans of a “day of reckoning and retribution.”

Since his January pledge, Trump has swarmed the state with masked federal agents who showed little respect for the rule of law or even common decency. He has demonized a large population of mostly American citizens, Somalis, denigrating all of them as criminals and “garbage.” And, he has directed federal agencies to withhold critical funds owed the state.

This summer, Trump’s dark shadow looms large over Minnesota’s politics. In the Republican primary to chose the party’s gubernatorial candidate, fealty to the MAGA leader has pushed aside any discussion of how to make Minnesota a better state in which to live and work. Instead, recent polls show Mike Lindell leading the race with a platform that largely echoes Trump’s petty grievances and false conspiracies.

In the U.S. Senate race, both the Democratic and Republican campaigns feature smart, credible candidates, all of whom are spending most of their time trying to convince voters of their Trumpian loyalty (Republican candidates) or their aggressive and unequivocal opposition (Democrats).

Consider Republican candidate Michelle Tafoya. She is an articulate and smart person who enjoyed a successful and high-profile career in the male-dominated field of sports journalism. While Tafoya has little experience in government or public policy, one would think she could draw from her professional career and life experiences to offer proposals on workplace issues or economic opportunities for everyone. Instead, the issues she highlights on her website are little more than Trumpian attacks on immigrants, crime and fraud.

The Senate candidate endorsed by the state GOP, Adam Schwarze, has had little impact on the race or the issues. Even there, though, Trump’s influence was felt. Schwarze won the endorsement over Tafoya largely because of the influence of the state’s MAGA Republicans.

On the Democratic side, both U.S. Rep. Angie Craig and Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan offer substantive ideas on their campaign websites. But voters wouldn’t know that by the flood of campaign ads as the two battle for voters in the Aug. 11 primary. Many of the ads - and the candidates are flooding the airwaves - are attacks on the money pouring into each campaign. The reality is that in one way or another, both candidates are well-funded by special interests. While corporate donations dominate the attacks by the DFL Senate hopefuls, every candidate running for statewide office takes money from special interests, directly or from the executives running the businesses, labor unions and advocacy groups.

And when they aren’t arguing over the sources of campaign funds, they are defining themselves vis à vis Donald Trump. Flanagan says she is running to “avenge Minnesota” for the president’s attacks on the state while Craig touts her efforts to impeach members of the Administration who no longer are members of the Administration.

Subscribe now

Where are the ideas for solving big problems? Republicans attack immigrants, Democrats speak to the abuses of ICE. Where is the debate over solutions - the comprehensive reforms to secure the borders, make the visa process fair and transparent, deport undocumented immigrants convicted of serious crimes and create a pathway to legal residency for the millions of immigrants who have lived in Minnesota for years, pay their taxes and contribute greatly to the state’s economy and culture?

What about tax policy? States like Minnesota can’t go it alone in imposing wealth taxes on the ultra-rich without sending deep-pocketed residents fleeing to other states. But what is the federal alternative? Are Republicans content with a tax system that increasingly advantages the wealthy? Can Democrats structure a tax system that requires more of the very rich (and, perhaps, their heirs) and can be implemented without detracting from investments and entrepreneurial activities?

And so it goes, from issue to issue. Trump says “affordability” is a Democratic hoax and sits on a bipartisan housing bill to gain leverage for a truly abysmal (and probably unconstitutional) bill to restrict voting access. Does Tafoya agree with the President’s characterization and strong arm tactics?

Democrats want to expand access to health care, but what’s the path forward? “Medicare for All” is a catchy slogan; the policies needed to transform one-fifth of the economy require many more details.

Then there is Social Security and Medicare, both on the ledge of financial catastrophe. Without legislative changes, the Social Security trust fund will be sufficient to pay only 78% of promised benefits six years from now. Both Republicans and Democrats should have that on their “A lists” of issues, yet little has been said by any candidate.

Whoever is elected in November will join a Senate almost certain to be closely divided, maybe a seat or two to the Democrats’ advantage or perhaps Republicans maintain the majority. Making the Senate functional should be a top priority in the last two years of Trump and his increasingly autocratic ways. What do the candidates offer that could give voters hope that Congress can regain its vital position as an equal third branch of government? Do the candidates have ideas on how to restore confidence in Congress or do they value ideological rigidity over collaboration with the other party?

Political campaigns long ago became defined by vague promises and negative attack ads. Trump’s influence, though, has exacerbated and accelerated the deterioration of political campaigns and voters are the losers no matter who wins the election.

We voters should just concede today’s political reality and accept that support for Trump is sufficient among all Republican candidates and Democrats will oppose his policies vigorously and in equal measure.

And once it’s agreed what the candidates will do for and to Trump, please, candidates, tell Minnesotans what you will do for us. That is the campaign we are waiting to embrace.

One of the roles political parties should play is to recruit, vet and advance qualified candidates. Instead, we have Donald Trump foisting on voters a slew of terrible candidates, using his petty grievances as the main criterion for endorsement. Democrats failed in 2023 and 2024 to acknowledge President Biden’s obvious decline until it was too late (a failure Republicans are repeating today), and the country is paying the price.

Now, voters in Maine are dealing with the fallout from Democratic leaders rallying around an obviously-flawed Senate candidate, Graham Platner. Whether the latest allegations of sexual abuse are true or not, his candidacy should have been an embarrassment to Democrats from the beginning. The choices he made throughout his adult life should have posed troubling questions for Democrats. Yet, Democrats from Bernie Sanders to Tim Walz chose to put false populism over qualifications.

The political parties are populating Congress with people who can win elections but have few qualifications to serve effectively. Too often, the newly-elected come to Washington filled with ideological fervor but no understanding of how government works, the importance of collaboration or the details that define the essence of good public policy. The result is the ineptitude of Congress and the tyranny of an autocratic president.

There are solutions, but voters need to be bold. Demand political reforms, especially actions that can be taken at the state level. Yes, the Supreme Court decision, Citizens United, opened a floodgate of special interest dollars and should be overturned. But that won’t happen soon.

What could happen in short order are these reforms, each of which could be implemented by a courageous governor and an enlightened state legislature:

Open primaries in which the top four finishers regardless of political party advance to the general election. Political parties can endorse and promote their candidates, but voters get the final word.

Ranked choice voting in the general election. It works, it is popular where it is used and it gives voters a better choice than casting a ballot for the lesser of two evils.

Campaign finance reform. Public funding could be used to encourage local, small-dollar contributions. This doesn’t eliminate big money, but it does help level the playing field for new candidates with good ideas.

Parties have failed voters in many respects. Voters need to reassert the power of their ballots.

Congress is on the spot again. Its own ineptness and inability to function as a body that does little more than provide for the comfort and re-election of its members has been knocked down another peg by the Supreme Court.

The Court, in a decision handed down June 29, significantly expands the power of the executive branch. In a 6-3 decision with the justices’ votes falling along familiar ideological lines, the court said that in most cases, a president has the authority to hire and fire members of independent agencies.

The ruling has far-reaching consequences. While the ruling came in a case brought by one member of one independent agency, it likely will give President Trump and his successors the power to dismiss members of most of the two dozen or so independent agencies, boards and commissions.

The executive branch grows stronger with the court’s ruling and by default the legislative branch sinks deeper into its self-imposed irrelevancy.

An irony of the case is that the plaintiff in the case is a person originally appointed by Trump to the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC requires that no more than three of its five members can be from the same political party. Rebecca Slaughter, a Democrat, was appointed by Trump in his first term and reappointed by President Joe Biden.

Subscribe now

At the beginning of term two, Trump dismissed Slaughter from the FTC, saying her views were “inconsistent” with the Trump administration’s priorities. She was fired from her post without cause, setting up the conflict between executive power and a 90-year-old law protecting the independence of boards like the FTC.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, “Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work. Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.”

The agencies that now fall under the President’s thumb are not insignificant. The agencies protect consumers from deceptive advertising, predatory lending practices, securities fraud, damage to the environment and other important roles. Certainly, the reach of the agencies has grown, some of that due to the abdication of Congress’s lawmaking role.

It’s pretty clear how President Trump will respond to the ruling. Anyone now serving on the board of one of the affected agencies who isn’t willing to rubber-stamp Trump’s agenda may as well pack up the office right now. One can expect a new flood of MAGA policies to dominate agendas.

Congress does have the power to resist if it chooses. The 30-year-old Congressional Review Act gives Congress the authority to reject agency rules, including those already on the books. The challenge is that it is far more effective at eliminating rules than creating new ones.

“Congress and the President can void agency rules and prevent future administrations from reissuing them,” Hannah Frater recently wrote in Harvard Law Review. “But this procedure is a one-way ratchet. Congress can disapprove a regulation with a House majority and fifty votes in the Senate, but it needs sixty votes in the Senate to reinstate or approve the same regulation. The problem of the CRA lies in this asymmetry — it mandates a majority for me and a filibuster for thee. This dynamic is inherently deregulatory. It is easy to destroy yet difficult to build.”

Trump and the Republican Congress have made frequent use of the CRA to repeal the policies and regulations of Democratic predecessors. Through spring of this year, Trump has used the CRA twice as much as Presidents Biden and Obama combined.

One fairly can criticize the Court’s decision, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor did in writing the minority opinion. She said the Court’s ruling “reshapes our Government. Dozens of independent commissions are now likely to become purely executive agencies, shifting tremendous power over broad swaths of American life into the President’s hands.”

The impact of the ruling, though, could be balanced by an effective Congress. Virtually all board members of the independent federal agencies are subject to Senate confirmation. While the President should have leadership that reflects his priorities, the agencies were designed by Congress to be bipartisan and experts in their areas of jurisdiction. Holding nominees for boards to these standards is not an unreasonable infringement on the executive branch.

Congress also can use the CRA to give more rigorous review to proposed rules before they are implemented. And, when agencies propose rules that favor a few over the interests of the public, Congress can do what the founders intended - be the champions of the people by enacting good legislation.

Of course, a more effective Congress requires more effective members. The best hope for the well-being and future prosperity of the country is that voters in this year’s primary elections (Minnesota’s is Aug. 11, with early voting available now) and November’s general elections select policymakers who want to get things done and not just make a statement for or against Trump.

Minnesota has had a long tradition of federal lawmakers, Republicans and Democrats alike, who saw problem-solving as more important than posturing. Now, more than at any time in recent history, voters need to make that tradition their most important criterion in electing men and women to public office.

(This article initially was published in the Minneapolis Times June 30; illustration from NBC News.)

Share

America’s two major political parties continue to be torn apart by MAGA on the right and the growing influence of the Democratic Socialists of America - DSA - on the left. The two polar opposites are finding common ground only in proving Barry Goldwater wrong when he said, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice…moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

Goldwater delivered his most famous line at the 1964 Republican National Convention. In the abstract, his aphorism has some value. In practical politics, Goldwater used the line to defend his staunch anti-communism and his platform to turn back the clock on the New Deal and to oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Political extremism is the tool of those who seek to punish those who are out of favor. President Trump leads MAGA in creating a masked federal police agency to harass immigrants, both those here legally and those who are undocumented. Democratic-led states are targeted for reductions in federal payments and programs. Women and people of color are denied military promotions in an administration that calls itself a meritocracy. Every day, it seems, comes a new assault on people whose only offense is to question the policies and actions of MAGA.

From the left, comes the platform of the DSA which calls for defunding “the police by rejecting any expansion to police budgets,” “freedom for all incarcerated people” and making “all public higher education tuition-free with no out-of-pocket cost for room and board and (canceling) all student loan debt.”

Share

Paying for these and other massively expensive government programs would come largely from taxing the rich, large inheritances, corporations and private colleges and universities. As unlikely as it is that this new revenue would be sufficient to pay the tab, the DSA brokers little discussion. Those who oppose wealth taxes are castigated as “puppets for billionaires.”

The irony is that in many ways, DSA and MAGA are born of the same alienation and anger many Americans feel toward their own government and the opposing political party.

MAGA sees in Democrats a relentless growth of government welfare programs that go to immigrants - especially those here illegally - minorities and the LGBTQ community. The MAGA mantra was articulated at the Trump 2024 campaign rally at Madison Square Garden by current Trump deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller: “America is for Americans and Americans only!” First in line are white, male, evangelical, straight Americans.

DSA sees a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich. “Billionaires control access to basic human needs like housing, healthcare, and education and make a profit off of them,” proclaims the DSA platform.

The fracturing of the two major parties is contributing to many of the problems the extremists propose to solve by making good public policy impossible to achieve. Extremists produce gridlock and political incompetence that solutions become impossible to achieve.

Immigration is a case in point.

Extremists lock into their own skewed view of the world and can’t see enough merit in the other side’s perspective to even come to a common definition of the problem. MAGA sees immigration as a security issue, both at the border and in our communities. They accept the lies that undocumented immigrants are invading the country, stealing U.S. jobs, voting illegally, consuming tax-supported welfare programs and pillaging our neighborhoods. When Minnesota Rep. Tom Emmer claims Somalis are responsible for 80% of the crime in Minnesota, as he recently did, many in MAGA accept the lie without a second thought.

DSA sees immigration as a human rights issue, especially for the working class. DSA advocates for an immigration policy that would permit “workers to freely migrate between countries to seek employment without restrictive immigration controls.” DSA favors universal suffrage, extending the vote to non-citizens. When MAGA loses sleep over the “great replacement theory” - the threat that Democrats intentionally are replacing white Americans with brown and black non-citizens - DSA offers evidence.

This same divide is true across every major issue. Both sides get locked into a narrow definition of the problem making it hard for policymakers to break free of the myths and fabrications created by and for their “tribes.” Occasionally, they might strike a compromise they tout with mealy-mouthed praise, but by definition, a compromise is finding the agreement least objectionable to all parties.

Extremism blocks collaboration, the place where innovation and bold thinking exists. Collaboration requires people to craft a new approach - a third way - while respecting the values and goals of all parties.

Extremism also promotes mediocrity and sometimes mendacity in public officials. Want to be appointed to the federal bench under Trump? Better not go any further in a Senate confirmation in answering the question of who won the 2020 presidential election than to say Joe Biden was certified. But did he win? Nominees to the federal bench were asked multiple times earlier this year. He was certified, came the chorus. The nominees were confirmed.

DSA has its own loyalty tests. If one opposes Trump consistently and strongly enough while favoring an avowedly leftist agenda, other “flaws” are overlooked. Graham Platner is the Maine Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in spite of past racist comments, allegations of volatile and sometimes violent behavior toward women and a tattoo that looks a lot like a Nazi symbol. In days past, Democrats would have joined in bouncing him from the team. Today, he is a standard bearer.

Republican extremism has a head start on the left and a far more dangerous advocate in Donald Trump than anyone on the Democratic side. That doesn’t mean the Democrats can’t catch up. Consider that at the state DFL convention in May, 57% of the delegates were first-timers, an unheard of number for party conventions. Many of the newbies were there to promote their far-left view of the DFL. And, it showed in the endorsements, the opposition to proven vote-getters (Amy Klobuchar) and the candidate speeches playing to the audience.

Being against Donald Trump is not a campaign platform; it is a grudge. Legitimate, to be sure, but not the basis for getting things done.

The antidote to extremism is not more extremism. Instead, it is engagement on the issues you care most about and with the candidates who represent your values. Most importantly, the best response is to vote for the candidates who are running to get things done, not to make a statement or to avenge the other party. Minnesota’s primary election is Aug. 11 (early voting already is underway).

Vote as if the country’s future depends on it. It does.

(Illustration from The Conversation.)

The impact of effective public policy can be slow, with progress measured over years or even decades. Bad public policy often shows its face more quickly.

Public health is a good example. It takes time to build the systems and encourage the behaviors that improve the health of a population. It takes only a moment to undo years of investments.

The U.S. today is witness to that reality. The Trump Administration’s policies and pronouncements have undermined public confidence in vaccines and are producing an epidemic of measles, a disease that largely had been eliminated from the U.S.

Cases of measles in the U.S. quadrupled from 2024 to 2025, and the first half of this year will see more cases than all of last year. Among the cases reported so far in 2026, 92% were in unvaccinated people or those whose status was unknown.

Now, in one of the most egregious examples of politics and money taking priority over public health, President Trump is introducing a new generation of young people to nicotine addiction. The Food and Drug Administration is preparing to fast-track flavored vaping products and nicotine pouches, allowing the sale of products that have not been authorized by the agency. The FDA announced the new policy after Marty Makary, a vocal opponent of vaping, was pushed out of his post as FDA commissioner.

This abhorrent policy change should be especially appalling to Minnesotans. In the 1990s, the state of Minnesota and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota sued tobacco companies claiming the industry knowingly produced an unsafe product and used deceptive marketing - lies - to sell tobacco.

Among the most important outcomes of Minnesota’s complete victory was the release of millions of pages of once-secret tobacco industry documents. The industry’s own words revealed how long it was known that tobacco use is deadly. Research papers showed how tobacco scientists worked to find the right balance between acceptable flavor of a cigarette and the nicotine level that would achieve maximum addiction.

The most cynical tobacco industry revelation was the on-going secret discussions of how to generate and capture “replacement” smokers - the young people needed to replace the customers killed by tobacco use.

And that brings the discussion back to President Trump and his FDA. As recently as 1980, about one-third of Minnesota adults regularly smoked cigarettes. After decades of good policy, including cessation help for smokers, bans on smoking in public spaces (including bars and restaurants) and aggressive education campaigns focused on preventing kids from starting tobacco use, only about 10% of Minnesota adults smoke today.

For most, this is good news achieved after years of smart public policy. A 2018 study by HealthPartners found that tobacco cessation efforts in the first 20 years after the lawsuit was settled resulted in more than 4,100 fewer Minnesota deaths attributable to smoking; the prevention of 38,000 cases of cancer, cardiovascular diseases and other smoking-related diseases; health cost savings of $2.7 billion; and, a $2.4 billion bump in the state’s economy due to increased productivity.

To those that manufacture and sell e-cigarettes and tobacco pouches, including some of the largest tobacco companies, the data tell a different story. Even more than before societal norms around smoking changed, tobacco companies today need replacement customers. President Trump is coming to the rescue.

Subscribe now

The industry and its shills promote e-cigarettes as a safer alternative to tobacco products and an aid to help smokers break the habit. There is some validity to these claims. Candy-flavored products, though, aren’t aimed at helping existing smokers quit; their goal is to create a new generation of users addicted to nicotine. E-cigarettes are a gateway to regular tobacco use and cigarette smoking, according to studies published in the Journal of Adolescent Health. Flavored products are a kid’s first choice.

Candy-flavored e-cigarettes and the increasingly popular tobacco pouches had been banned, although illegal flavored e-cigarettes from China are widely available. Now, the tobacco industry and others will be able to circumvent the FDA. While selling nicotine delivery vehicles to young people is illegal, the industry knows how to get its messages and its products to its replacement customers.

President Trump effectively has declared himself to be the most pro-nicotine president in recent memory. Why? KFF News, the investigative reporting arm of the highly-regarded non-profit health research and policy organization, offers some possible answers. According to its reporting, the FDA change came a week after tobacco interests donated $5 million to Trump’s political organizations, this gift on top of the $6 million donated to Trump groups last year. KFF also reported that earlier this year Trump increased his stock holdings in Phillip Morris by as much as $1.64 million. He also has investments in other tobacco companies.

Political advantage and personal gain - the hallmarks of the Trump Administration’s public health policy.

Minnesotans aren’t powerless in their battle against nicotine addiction. Three action steps are especially important.

First, the Minnesota Department of Health offers a free tobacco cessation program for any resident wanting to quit using cigarettes, vapes, or other commercial tobacco products. Quit Partner Minnesota can be reached by calling 1-800-QUIT-NOW (1-800-784-8669).

Second, parents need to be aware and engaged. The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids has useful information on how kids are targeted and an excellent step-by-step guide on how parents can talk to their kids about smoking, vaping and tobacco pouches. (https://tinyurl.com/34hyvjek).

Finally, contact members of Congress. FDA policy should not be sold to the highest bidder and our kids’ health should not be bargained away for political gain.

The state has come a long way in reducing the harm caused by tobacco since the tobacco litigation was settled in 1998. Policies here have influenced the nation and shifted norms around smoking, all for the good.

Minnesotans can help assure that the slow progress of good public health policy to reduce tobacco use does not collapse in a New York minute because of the greed and perfidy of one person.

(First published in Minneapolis Times, June 17)

Share

Trump signs the Memorandum of Understanding

with Iran. Iran’s President also signed the MoU.

In 1973, President Richard Nixon defined the Paris Treaty settling the Vietnam War as “Peace with Honor.” In fact, as events showed in the years following, the primary promises in the treaty were meaningless and the agreement quickly began to collapse.

More than 50 years after Vietnam, President Donald Trump seems to have heeded only the worst lessons from that conflict and America’s other foreign incursions over the past half century. The worst mistake of all was launching an attack on Iran with uncertain objectives.

Nothing is more telling about how Trump began the conflict than his explanation for why he ended it. He said he didn’t want to be remembered as “Herbert Hoover, he was always the one I didn’t want to be.” Likely haunted by the 3 million jobs the U.S. economy lost during Trump’s first term - the worst record since Hoover - Trump was willing to end a conflict he shouldn’t have started by giving Iran everything it could have sought, all to avoid an entirely predictable economic downturn.

Even the re-opening of the Strait of Hormuz, the one tangible positive for the U.S., is an empty victory. Not only does Trump achieve only what was in place Feb. 27, the day before the attacks were launched, Iran seems to have an opening to turn the strait into a money-maker. International law prohibits charging tolls for passage through the strait and the agreement compels free transit for 60 days. After that, though, there seems to be no prohibition on Iran charging “service fees” for use of the waterway. Such fees would raise the price of oil and other products, adding to global inflation.

Trump entered the conflict ignoring the obvious strategic importance and vulnerability of the strait and apparently had no plan to assure it would stay open. Yes, the longer the strait remained closed, the more likely a global economic disaster became. Trump rightly and legitimately would have been held responsible. He has good cause to worry about the “ Hoverizing” of his legacy.

Share

Ignoring the logistical and strategic challenges of engaging in conflict is disastrous, as presidents before him learned and Trump overlooked or didn’t know. Like some of his predecessors, he put his trust in the power of the U.S. military but was unwilling to use its full power. By no means is that an argument for sending ground troops into Iran; it is a recognition that when Trump publicly took options off the table, Iran had a clearer picture of what it faces.

Trump seemed to think that killing many of the regime’s leaders would leave Iran rudderless and unable to make wartime decisions. He ignored the historical lessons that martyrs leave behind those even more committed to the fight, adding the desire to avenge a death to the list of motivations. Creating a leadership vacuum with a military force ready to fill the void, as happened in Iran, rarely has made a country less rigid or repressive.

Trump is declaring the equivalent of Nixon’s Peace with Honor. In fact, he has peace with great uncertainty and possible catastrophe. Israel remains on the outside looking in, with leaders still determined to rid the region of its enemies by any and all means. If Israel’s attacks persist, will Iran use oil money and reparations to rebuild its partners in terror rather than rebuilding its own country? That’s a question not only unanswered, but so far dangerously ignored in the memorandum.

The memorandum of understanding - with many details to be worked out - commits Iran only to maintaining the status quo with its nuclear program. That status quo might become nothing more than the same promises Iran has made for years that it will not produce nuclear weapons. If Trump couldn’t trust these promises in 2018 when he petulantly withdrew from the multinational treaty, what gives him confidence today?

Iran will receive massive amounts of money in return for doing very little. It will be able to sell oil in the world market and import desperately-needed goods. Perhaps eliminating Iran’s ballistic missiles will be negotiated over the next 60 days, but there are no guarantees. Iran even is given a voice in deciding how and where U.S. military assets are deployed in the neighborhood.

The U.S. will remove sanctions and appears not to be threatening to re-impose them if Iran violates the terms. That seems to be little more than a nod to the obvious. There is so little asked of Iran in the memorandum that there is little to violate.

The memorandum creates a 60-day ceasefire during which the U.S. and Iran will negotiate some of the thorniest issues. Here, too, Trump should learn from history, especially his own. It seems unlikely that the inept and self-serving negotiating team of Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff can achieve in two months what they failed to accomplish in the last 1 1/2 years. They did very, very well for themselves and the President. They produced little for the country.

Trump doesn’t want to be remembered as Herbert Hoover. He should hope not to be remembered as Richard Nixon. He should create a negotiating team that is equal to the task - knowledgeable in Iranian culture and Mideast politics and experts in the complicated details of uranium enrichment.

Republican senators have a role to play and it is encouraging that many already have voiced doubts about the budding agreement. But let’s remember that many of the same senators who are calling the war and subsequent memorandum of understanding “a tremendous foreign policy blunder” are the same senators who voted to confirm the obviously and completely unqualified Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense, who stood by silently as Hegseth eviscerated the ranks of the most experienced military leaders and bowed meekly to Trump’s rants when some in Congress sought to exercise the body’s constitutional authority to wage war.

The stock market - Trump’s benchmark of success - is not the measure of U.S. security or Mideast peace. The time for true Peace with Honor is at hand. Members of Congress and the public must hold Trump accountable to achieving a settlement with Iran that ends the war, stabilizes the region and protects U.S. and global interests. Yes, that’s a tall order. It would be easier to achieve if those were the clear goals in February before the first strike was launched. That they weren’t doesn’t make them any less urgent today.

When then-Rep. Newt Gingrich called on Americans to “drain the swamp” in Washington, he wasn’t focused on the federal bureaucracy. He was looking in the mirror. As part of his 1994 “Contract for America,” Gingrich and Republican candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives promised to impose term limits on himself and his colleagues in Congress.

The “Contract for America,” public dissatisfaction with the first two years of President Clinton’s Administration and the usual political churn of midterm elections all contributed to Republicans taking control of both the House and the Senate for for the first time in 40 years.

Gingrich delivered on his promise to hold a House vote on term limits within the first 100 days of the new Congress. In doing so, he underscored why congressional term limits are unlikely to ever become a reality. The House did get to a vote on the issue in February 1995, but it fell short. Later congressional efforts in the 1990s either didn’t pass or, in the Senate, couldn’t even make it to a final vote.

Efforts to impose term limits aren’t new and Gingrich’s proposals weren’t unique. Committee hearings on different approaches have been a routine feature of just about every Congress since at least the 1940s. Public opinion - as much as 80% of Americans with broad bipartisan agreement - favors term limits.

In the face of all this, why are some members of Congress still hanging around after four decades or more in office? There are three barriers to term limits, with two of them insurmountable in the near future.

Share

The biggest barrier is the Constitution which defines the qualifications for service in Congress. Adding new criteria - mandatory retirement ages or limits on years of service - require a two-thirds vote in Congress and approval of 38 states.

The second barrier are the members themselves. They aren’t easily convinced to change the political system in which they were elected. Simply put, once elected, not many members are eager to limit their service in institutions that value seniority.

The third barrier is a practical one. The issues facing Congress are complex and take time to master. Imposing limits on tenure shifts a lot of the institutional knowledge and expertise to congressional staff. Many of the staff members, especially those who have invested careers in policy issues, have served for years and are the ones who best know why certain provisions of law exist and the challenges of change.

In addition, relationships among elected members are important to a functioning Congress. While “functioning Congress” may be an oxymoron, it could (and has been) worse without the personal connections that bridge partisan differences.

Public support for term limits is a reflection of dissatisfaction with Congress and a broad sense that the longer members serve the less accountable they are to their constituents. Instead, the concern is that they become what many ran against - insiders who serve the interests of a few.

Few would question that Congress has become largely dysfunctional, especially in an era of a President willing to challenge the limits of executive power and the Constitution itself. Last year saw the longest government shutdown in history because Congress could not agree on a budget and a historically absent House of Representatives. The House held legislative votes or meetings on only 87 days under Republican control, often using recesses as a way to avoid contentious issues.

There are solutions even if term limits aren’t among them. Among them are these four:

Reform the committee process. Much of the work of Congress is done in committee, yet committees are cumbersome and sometimes promote bases of power that become unassailable fiefdoms. One problem is the overlapping jurisdiction of committees. One of the worst examples is health policy. At least 12 Senate committees have influence over health-related issues, making it hard to craft the reforms desperately needed. Streamlining jurisdictions would facilitate not only greater efficiency, but better policy.

In addition, uniform limits on the tenure of committee chairs and the senior committee members of the minority party should be imposed. Republicans in the House and Senate have done this, Democrats haven’t. Rotating the chairs and ranking minority members reduces the consolidation of power and brings new ideas to the forefront.

Second, Congress needs better information on which to base its actions. The Office of Technology Assessment, eliminated by Gingrich in a false cost-saving move, is desperately needed. Members of Congress need objective and reliable information on issues related to science and technology, especially in this era of artificial intelligence and other rapid advances.

In addition, the Congressional Research Service, which has seen staff reductions, needs to be strengthened. This service also is an invaluable source of quality information on just about every topic a member requests.

Third, Congress needs to improve the budget process. Designing and approving a federal budget is the most important task of Congress, yet all appropriations bills haven’t been passed on time since 1977. A good start at reform would be to move from the current annual federal budget to a biannual process. That not only would give Congress more time to do its work and do it well, it would give greater predictability to agencies and their programs. In addition, Congress should impose automatic continuing resolutions if budgets haven’t been passed. These resolutions - stopgap funding measures - assure that government keeps operating even when partisan differences block a new spending bill. While the budget is a powerful and often valuable tool for the minority party, the disruptions and expense of government shutdowns too often aren’t worth the political gain. An automatic continuing resolution keeps government open; funding an agency at current levels gives the minority party some leverage by stopping budget increases.

Fourth, impose age limits. This, too, requires a constitutional amendment. However, with more and more members serving long past their time, it is more likely Congress could reach the two-thirds vote needed to send an amendment to the states.

Of course, the biggest reform is well within the reach of members of Congress right now: Just do their jobs. Stop ceding power to the executive branch or passing bad legislation with the hope courts will bail them out.

Voters also have power, especially in statewide Senate elections. Collaboration across partisan aisles should be an asset, not a disqualifying attribute of candidates. Most importantly, vote for candidates who recognize that Congress is an equal branch of government. It’s long past time it started acting like one.

(Photo: Kansas Reflector)

During the 1980s, Chrysler Corp. CEO Lee Iacocca reigned as the country’s preeminent business leader. In 1985, a Gallup survey found that he was the third most respected person after President Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II. He reinvigorated the U.S. auto industry, saving it from domination by Japanese imports and gave U.S. car buyers the Mustang and the minivan.

Iacocca also paved the way for the presidency of Donald Trump in ways that no doubt would have the late auto executive turning in his grave. As Reagan’s term was coming to an end, Iacocca weighed the idea of running for President (probably as a Democrat) in 1988. It was not an idle thought. A 1987 Washington Post article noted that an “astounding 92.7% identify him correctly; 78% of those who know him also have a favorable view of him. Unquestionably, there is something distinctive and larger-than-life about him, a presidential air.”

Iacocca wasn’t shy about his vision for the U.S. “If America could rebuild Western Europe after WWII,” he wrote, “we ought to be able to rebuild our own country today.”

Ultimately, Iacocca chose not to run for public office. The tease of a President Iacocca, though, did have a long-lasting impact. It gave credibility to the notion that what America needs most isn’t more cup holders in cars, but a business person in the White House.

In 2016 and 2024, U.S. voters took that idea to heart and sent Donald Trump to fix what career politicians had damaged. Unfortunately for the world, voters put their trust in the caricature of a business leader, thinking the catch phrase “You’re fired!” was a substitute for policy acumen and a no-nonsense demand for excellence.

It’s too bad Iacocca’s 2007 book, “Where Have All the Leaders Gone?,” wasn’t published a few years later. Perhaps if it were published in closer proximity to the political rise of Trump, voters would have applied Iacocca’s criticisms of leaders to Trump and found him sorely lacking.

Iacocca called out business and political leaders in three major areas, each of which defines the presidency of Donald Trump.

They lack accountability. They are passive in crises and lack discipline while problems grow and demand solutions. Consider that in both 2017 and 2025, Trump inherited economies that were robust and growing. His first term ended with a net loss of 3 million American jobs and a dismal four-year annual average GDP growth of about 1%. Yes, Covid was a major factor, but presidencies are judged in large measure by their handling of crises. Trump failed and the U.S. paid the price.

They damage alliances. Politicians have harmed global relationships by failing to lead with moral authority, said Iacocca. Trump’s “might makes right” philosophy aligns the U.S. with the world autocrats while jeopardizing longterm friendships.

Short-sighted. Iacocca criticized leaders for sacrificing the future for the present. They have no vision and no willingness to tackle the big issues that will shape the future. Trump slashes funding for research, environmental protection and good health policy while promoting old technologies that the marketplace and common sense long have rejected. His recent proposal to invest $700 billion on coal is the latest assault on the future.

Trump lacks every attribute Iacocca said the best leaders share, including these three: creativity - the ability to think in new ways and the willingness to take risks; communication - telling the truth and acknowledging reality; and, character - having meaningful skills and the ability to do the job.

Perhaps a business person is needed to lead the country in this time of massive transformation. Trump is not that person. Trump did not make his money from shrewd risk-taking or insightful predictions of where markets were going. Before the success of his reality TV show, “The Apprentice,” Trump was teetering on bankruptcy. The show provided revenue and the fame that he leveraged into licensing deals. Trump is a terrific self-promoter, not a business savant. Forbes estimated in 2022 that Trump would have been richer had he simply invested his inheritance in the S&P 500.

Trump’s ineptness as President was foreshadowed by his dismal business career. Look at his failures in the White House from the perspective of good business practices:

Rather than assure competent senior leadership, Trump has filled critical positions on the basis of sycophancy, not expertise. Bill Pulte’s ascension to acting director of national intelligence is the latest example. Pulte comes to his new post for no reason other than his willingness to use his current position as head of the Federal Housing Administration to scour confidential private records in search of information to support Trump’s campaign of retribution.

A thoughtful leader assures a supply of labor and the means of production. Trump has decimated U.S. manufacturing; some 70,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost since the beginning of Trump’s second term. Meanwhile, the President’s incoherent immigration policies threaten to undermine the availability of labor for core U.S. industries.

Managing the revenue-cost ratio is a key business function. Under Trump, federal deficits are growing at a record pace and the national debt now exceeds the size of the U.S. economy for the first time since post-WW II. Spending keeps climbing, to be sure, but Trump has cut the country’s revenue in ways that don’t enhance the economy or the social fabric of the country; they reward the wealthy.

Certainly, Trump is not the only President to fall short of the myths created around him. But eventually, most Americans catch on. Most eventually saw Joe Biden no longer was equal to the demands of the White House and pushed him aside. Too late for some, but ultimately not ignored by most.

Not so with Donald Trump’s advocates. The more he falls asleep at the helm - literally and figuratively - the more his supporters promote the myth of Donald Trump. The reality is that he is not a strong deal maker for the U.S. It’s likely he doesn’t know either chess or checkers and is playing neither while foreign leaders take advantage of the U.S. Meanwhile, Trump’s plans for the future extend only to the personal fortunes of himself and his family.

Running government is not the same as running a business. That’s not to say that a business leader - Iacocca included - could not be a good President. It is to say that a person who succeeded with the gifts of a large inheritance and a talent for self-promotion does not have the skills to lead the country.

Advocates want to persist with the charade of Trump-as-a-great-business-leader. Other voters need to counter by acting like shareholders in a company being run into the ground. Fire those who enable the chief, in this case Republican members of Congress in the midterms. Then demand that the new team steer us in a better direction, overriding the leader until his contract expires in two years.

(Photo cred

it: DC Reports)

A provocative conversation on Minnesota’s future is being led by astute observers of the state’s politics, policies and prospects. At the heart of the discussion is this question: Do today’s Minnesotans still enjoy the miracle that Time Magazine in 1973 famously defined as “the good life” or is the state sinking in the quicksand of its own myths?

David Schultz, Hamline University Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Legal Studies, started a provocative four-article (so far) debate in the Minnesota StarTribune. Minnesota is a victim of self-delusion, writes Schultz, a state “living comfortably inside a story of its own making: clean government, civic virtue, shared purpose. It is a story repeated so often it has hardened into doctrine. And doctrines, like myths, have a way of obscuring the truth” (“Minnesota and the comfort of its own myth,” May 10).

Hold on, responds Dane Smith, a longtime political and government reporter,in an article a week later. “Statistics consistently show that ours is a relatively better place for people in the vast middle-income ranks and for those on the lower end of a growing inequality and affordability crisis. In other words, for most of us,” he wrote in a Minnesota StarTribune commentary. (“It’s not really a myth — Minnesota is an exceptional state,” May 16).

By the end of May, two other thoughtful voices added to an increasingly robust discussion. Gary Cunningham, a former county administrator, health executive and now a senior adviser at the Institute on Race, Power, and Political Economy at the New School for Social Research, underscored the state’s racial and geographic disparities (“Beyond Lake Wobegon and the Minnesota myth,” May 24). The wealthy gain a larger share of the state’s prosperity, “leaving less behind for the people doing the actual work of the state,” writes Cunningham.

John Phelan, an economist at the conservative Center of the American Experiment (“It’s not just MAGA who’s worried about Minnesota’s trajectory,” May 24), posits that higher government spending and taxes are taking their toll, chasing the well-to-do out of state and depressing income for those who remain. “(B)etween 2019 and 2024, median household income…fell, in Minnesota, in real terms, by 6.4%, a worse performance than in 44 states. Again, we might still rank high, but look where we’re headed,” warns Phelan.

Taken together, these and other equally-thoughtful articles in the Minneapolis Times and elsewhere are less point-counterpoint than they are commentaries that say “yes, but…” Minnesota is a state with a quality-of-life as good as multiple national rankings and data show, but also suffering from blindness to problems and trends that threaten a prosperous future.

There are some challenges Minnesota alone can’t fix. Farming, mining and manufacturing - mainstays of the state’s rural economy - have been severely damaged by the inept economic and trade policies of the Trump Administration. The state can only do so much to counter the harm inflicted by federal policies.

Other problems, though, are of our own making. Rampant fraud and the policies and practices that opened the floodgates to theft top the list of the most obvious. Criminals stole tax dollars and too many public officials ignored multiple red flags.

Still, even while acknowledging the severity of the fraud crisis, context matters. Most state programs are efficient and secure. For example, in January, the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services found that Minnesota’s Medicaid program has an improper payment rate of about 2.1%, one-third the national average. The rate of improper payments doesn’t measure fraud, but it does reflect the care the state takes with public dollars.

Minnesota’s fraud crisis existing in a state with generally well-run programs is an important juxtaposition that lends itself to understanding whether Minnesota is more miracle or myth. Exploring what has worked in Minnesota and the strengths of key public investments over the years can lead to acknowledging the myths and creating effective solutions.

Health policy is a case in point. In the 1970s, more than three decades before Obamacare, Minnesota was an innovator in making affordable health insurance available to those with pre-existing health conditions. Twenty years later, the state addressed another failure of the health system - the lack of affordable coverage for the working poor, those who earned too much to be eligible for public programs but were in jobs that didn’t provide health benefits. MinnesotaCare filled that gap.

The policies, the first signed into law by a Democratic governor, the second by a Republican, shared important traits. They were targeted, they required financial buy-in from beneficiaries but had enough public subsidies to assure broad access and they delivered services effectively and cost-efficiently, often through the private sector.

They also delivered enormous benefits for the entire state. They created broad access to health care, supporting a healthy workforce and producing one of the nation’s highest rates of labor force participation. And when people are working and are productive, quality of life is enhanced. Families buy homes, the entertainment and hospitality sectors flourish because consumers have discretionary income, schools are stronger because local referenda are approved and on and on.

Today, though, Minnesota has too many public support programs that are well-intentioned but have lost their focus. Eligibility for many programs now includes people earning up to 200% or more of the federal poverty level. For some services, higher income limits might be warranted but only when reasons are valid, explicit and measured against meaningful metrics. In other words, programs should be designed with the same criteria that made Minnesota’s health policies for the working poor and those with pre-existing health conditions effective. Loosening or expanding the criteria should demand a high bar of justification.

Share

The state also must look beyond eligibility to how services are delivered. The state cannot afford to remain captive to systems and procedures designed for another time. For example, Minnesota is one of the few states to deliver many of its social service benefits through counties. Decentralization is expensive and it makes oversight of programs more difficult.

Massachusetts and Minnesota are the top two states in public welfare spending when adjusted for the size of the population served. Yet, according to the highly-regarded Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence, Massachusetts, with its more centralized approach, employs nearly 5,000 fewer full-time equivalent employees to deliver its programs. Minnesota taxpayers spent nearly $26 million more than Massachusetts in payroll costs in 2024 for its county-based systems. Those costs are reflected in property taxes, already rising at rates many homeowners cannot afford.

On these and other issues, Minnesota needs a debate among candidates that builds on the thoughtful groundwork laid by pundits. Commentators elevate problems; candidates should coalesce support for specific solutions. The future of Minnesota is too vulnerable and too valuable for candidates to coast on their popularity or to hide behind attack ads.

At their best - and it has been a long time since a “best” political season - campaigns educate, inspire and create broad mandates for action.

Minnesota remains a great place to live. It also faces serious challenges. In a year in which voters will elect a new governor and all 201 legislators, candidates need to trust voters enough to engage them in serious discussions around the question posed by analysts: Will Minnesota continue to be a quality-of-life miracle or will we succumb to the myths that feed our smugness but erode our future?

(This article originally appeared in the Minneapolis Times May 28.)

Is Minnesota still a great place to live or is it caught up in its own myths?

Share your thoughts.

Leave a comment

When Minnesota Republicans and Democrats meet later this month at their state conventions in Duluth and Rochester, they will do what generations of delegates always have done. They will endorse candidates and pass issue platforms that resonate with lofty principles but are short on practical solutions.

What the delegates won’t do is spend much time on the issue that needs the most focus and is within their power to remedy. In an era of rapidly changing technology, communications and social interaction, the Minnesota conventions should put political parties in the lead of reforming a political system that no longer works.

The parties and their conventions continue to operate as if people – the voters – like and trust them. They don’t. According to Pew Research, only 4% of U.S. adults say the political system is working extremely or very well; another 23% say it is working somewhat well. Nearly two-thirds - 63% - say they have little or no confidence at all in the future of the U.S. political system.

Even record voter turnout in the last three presidential elections is evidence of the public’s dislike of politics, politicians and parties. Increasingly, people are turning out to vote AGAINST the other party. They aren’t voting with confidence that their candidate will create a better future. They are voting because they think the other side is worse and even evil.

It shouldn’t be a surprise that in this environment, the endorsements Minnesota Democrats and Republicans bestow on candidates are losing their value with the larger voting population. Democrats have not endorsed a non-incumbent candidate for governor who was able to both survive the primary and win the office in the last 50-plus years. Republicans haven’t fared better over the same years. Only two people have won the GOP endorsement for governor and went on to be elected to the state’s top office.

Understand the delegates’ priorities, though. They aren’t selecting candidates who have the best ideas for the future. Delegates sometimes aren’t even picking candidates because they think they can win. Convention-goers endorse candidates with whom they share an ideology, and dogma is where convention battle lines increasingly are drawn.

A large faction of Republican delegates, perhaps the majority, will demand their candidates offer unwavering loyalty to Donald Trump and MAGA. Michele Tafoya may have the best chance of giving Minnesota Republicans a U.S. Senate seat for the first time in nearly two decades. Yet, her 2022 comment that Trump’s politics are “messy” will be a huge hurdle for the many delegates who harbor more petty grievances than common sense.

On the other side of the partisan aisle, the Democratic Socialists of America are doing to the Democratic Party what the Tea Party did to Republicans 20 years ago. The DSA has two jurisdictions in Minnesota where they have outsized influence - the Minneapolis City Council and the DFL convention. Neither reflects the realities of what most Minnesotans want from their government.

In spite of these internal divisions (or maybe because of them) the political reforms that most Minnesotans want will receive little attention at the conventions. Yes, the parties will offer lofty and very different takes on government corruption, campaign finance reform and, given current headlines, gerrymandering, but the meaningful proposals to reform a political system that has lost the confidence of most voters will get short shrift. And woe to the candidate, Democrat or Republican, who dares to propose any change that would break the hold the two parties have on the system.

There are many ideas for reforming the political process to make it more transparent and inclusive. Parties could offer multiple endorsements at their conventions. Primaries could be non-partisan with the top candidates moving on to the general election regardless of party. General elections could be conducted with ranked choice voting. And drawing new boundaries for legislative and congressional seats should be done by independent commissions. Voters should choose their representatives; politicians should not be able to choose their voters.

None of that likely will consume much of the delegates’ time at the Minnesota conventions. Parties resist reform because they can. The powers that control the parties and write the rules of politics are incumbent office holders and special interests, including the big donors. Those who won their offices under today’s rules have little incentive to promote reforms that could pose challenges to their power. In fact, in one of the few displays of legislative bipartisanship in recent years, Minnesota Democrats and Republicans have joined to pass laws that make it harder for independent and third party candidates to mount successful campaigns.

Subscribe now

None of this is to say that conventions should be ignored or political parties abandoned. They have value. It is worthwhile to listen to what the party activists meeting in the conventions have to say about the candidates. It also is important to hear what the candidates who don’t win endorsement have to say to these intensely partisan delegates. Are those who win the parties’ backing the best leaders for these challenging times or are they endorsed because of ideology?

The reality is that whatever the conventions decide, Minnesota voters have the final say, not just in deciding who wins the General Election but in the Primary Election. In fact, in the current system, there is no better catalyst for change than the primaries. The primaries give voice and power to all voters. It is a key part of the political process that respects the independent streak of Minnesotans.

The Primary Election gives every voter the opportunity to accept or reject the candidates chosen by convention delegates. But to be heard, you have to vote, and primaries are notoriously low-turnout affairs.

That dynamic should change especially in a year as important to Minnesotans as 2026. Voters in November will elect a new governor, a U.S. senator and eight members of the U.S. House and all 201 legislators. Eligible voters can vote in any party’s primary. There is no party registration required. Independents can vote in any primary and those dissatisfied with the candidates their traditional party has put forward can vote in the primary of a party with more attractive candidates. While voters can only vote in the primary of a single party, people aren’t required to vote for every office. A voter can cast a positive vote for one favored candidate and let the other races play out as they may. Voters are not bound to vote in November for the party they chose in the primary.

The conventions will be interesting theater and may even provide useful information about candidates. Ultimately, though, the decisions for 2026 are too important to leave only to party delegates.

The primary is Aug. 11. Early voting by mail or in-person begins June 26. Be heard.

(Illustration from CNN.)

A single line in Gov. Tim Walz’s last State of the State address received far less attention than it deserves. With one pat-on–his-own-back anecdote, the Governor offered a crystal-clear example of how the state’s best intentions can go awry when meaningful metrics are ignored and poorly designed programs undermine the future.

The Governor offered this nugget as one of his administration’s significant achievements: “During the first two years of the Minnesota Free School Meals Program, schools served more than 300 million free meals, saving Minnesota families an average of $1,000 per student per year.”

That’s great and no doubt Minnesota families of school-aged children appreciate the savings. But what Walz didn’t mention is this: The goal of the program never was to put $1,000 in the pockets of families. The justification for spending more than $400 million every biennium was to improve the academic outcomes of students.

There is voluminous research - not to mention common sense - that a well-nourished student is more likely to succeed in school. The free universal school meals program was sold as a program to give all students the best chance for success. Walz, though, changed the metric to fit the outcome. By doing so, the Governor buries what is vital to the state’s future, a well-educated population, and shifts an education program to an income-support initiative.

The point isn’t to belabor the misguided evaluation of a single program. Rather, it is to say that the next governor and legislators need to be much more thoughtful about investing in the future and much more dedicated to holding programs accountable to measures that matter.

Changing the metrics of public programs to fit the outcomes is a sure path to slow but steady decline. Minnesota, for all its challenges of economic stagnation, a slow-growth population and, of course, fraud, still has enormous opportunities if the new leadership Minnesotans will elect this year is bold and rigorous in its program design and accountability standards.

Share

Some tasks are urgent, including tax and regulatory reform and re-thinking how the state funds public education. There also are other opportunities on the horizon that need innovative policies and meaningful measures even if the pay-off is longer-term. Among them are these three:

Climate Change. The partisan debate over the cause of climate change rages on and on. The evidence-based discussion of whether the climate is changing is over. The world is warming, severe weather events are the norm and today’s politics likely will exacerbate the trends before mitigating them.

Minnesota is not immune to the adverse effects of climate change. Warming, drought, wildfires and more severe precipitation events already are felt in Minnesota. Still, the state is likely to be a far more pleasant place to live than much of the rest of the country.

Can Minnesota become a “climate refuge,” attracting domestic immigrants fleeing harsher conditions elsewhere? Likely not enough to recreate the Baby Boom population explosion, but perhaps enough to reverse the state’s declines in economic growth. The first signs of an increased domestic migration may already be appearing. According to the U.S. Census, Minnesota gained a net of 8,300 new residents from 2024 to 2025, the first gain among this demographic since 2018. While, small in numbers, it is significant in comparison to other states. Minnesota jumped from 41st in total domestic migration in 2022 to 17th last year.

Democrats and Republicans are quick to claim credit or assign blame to any shift in population. DFLers argue that their progressive package of public services in 2023-24 is making Minnesota a quality-of-life destination. Republicans argue the domestic migration is a blip, not a trend, and whatever gains Minnesota made are offset by the exodus of wealthy residents fleeing the state’s high taxes.

Whatever the cause, it is a step in the right direction. What should policymakers be doing to build on these early growth buds? Work is underway to make Minnesota more resilient as the climate becomes more extreme. More is needed, such as upgrading infrastructure, including water treatment facilities, to make it more resilient and able to

handle the extreme precipitation events that have become the norm.

Minnesota’s electricity prices remain below the national average, but the state is losing its advantage. Renewable energy, a reassessment of nuclear power in light of new technologies and continued investment in the power grid will be essential, as well as continued development of renewable energy.

Minnesota will see increasing droughts that threaten the entire state and especially the boreal forests that extend across Canada and into northern Minnesota. Nature intends them to burn from time to time. Managing the forests, including the burns, will become ever more critical.

And so it goes. As people look for places to live that are affordable, safe and offer amenities including world class culture, sports and outdoor recreation, Minnesota can be a standout competitor if policymakers lead in making investments today that won’t pay off for years.

Artificial Intelligence: Minnesota is well-positioned to exploit the potential for value-added wealth from AI. The state already has a strong foothold in AI research and development, advancing new uses for AI chips and improving manufacturing processes. In addition, the state is home to the kind of industries that are among the early adopters of advanced AI. The state’s life sciences sector, for example, includes more than 7,000 companies employing 326,000 workers. Many of these are well-paying jobs in areas like medical devices, biotech and health IT. Mayo Clinic and other health leaders are well-along in adapting AI to better serve patients and customers.

Yet, the policy debate over AI largely is occurring in city councils and county commissions and it’s about data centers. Certainly, there are risks and rewards to the data centers. But if that is Minnesota’s only AI role, we will lose the opportunity for sustainable wealth and the well-paying jobs that will come from the application of AI to everyday tasks and as-yet-unimagined innovations in science, education and industry. Funding research and the researchers and promoting the entrepreneurs and investors essential to new industries will attract and keep the real AI wealth in Minnesota.

DEI: The third area of opportunity is misunderstood, polarizing and sometimes abused by those who implement it. At its best, DEI is about meritocracy, assuring that schools, employers and others cast the broadest possible net to create the largest pool of qualified applicants. Once the best people are on board, DEI promotes an environment in which every person has the opportunity to succeed individually by contributing their different perspectives and skills to advance the organization’s goals and mission.

Yes, DEI needs a new name and rebranding. The “too-woke” edges need to be sanded. But Minnesota will be a better and more successful state if the talent of every person is tapped. What does this mean for policy? Long-term investments are needed in programs (including better compensation for educators) to hire and retain the best and brightest teachers in every school, removing barriers that still block some from home ownership for reasons beyond financial means, assuring safe neighborhoods and creating more engagement opportunities for young people to keep them in school and work in community programs and off the streets.

Four years from now, a successful governor will deliver a state of the state address that touts some meaningful achievements of the term but also has a record of investments and measurements to say that in another four years, Minnesota will be even better.

(Illustration from QuoteFancy)

A century ago, British author and commentator G.K. Chesterton made an observation that time has neither corrected nor contradicted: “I’ve searched all the parks in all the cities and found no statues of committees.”

In Minnesota, the lack of public homage paid to committees is not a result of poor work by previous efforts of those who came together to hash out solutions to thorny public problems. Visionary solutions to emerging challenges ranging from the politicalization of court elections to drawing new boundaries for legislative districts to overhauling the state’s tax system have been advanced by committees. They died not for lack of innovative and bold ideas, but for lack of political will and leadership.

So, with apologies to Chesterton, this is a recommendation to go where others have traveled before but with the hope that in today’s divided political world, enough people will see opportunity.

The partisan chasm that grows deeper by the day is reflected in the voices of both parties. Republicans argue that Minnesota’s high taxes drive out entrepreneurs and businesses. They point to the analyses like the 2026 Minnesota Chamber of Commerce Business Benchmarks study, “Our state has fallen behind on nearly every measure of growth. From 2019 to 2024, Minnesota ranked 33rd in GDP growth, 39th in job growth, 40th in labor force growth and 46th in growth of (real median) household income. Meanwhile, more people are leaving our state than moving here.”

Meanwhile, DFLers defend high taxes by saying they are the price to be paid for living in a successful, compassionate state. They cite indices like WalletHub which says Minnesota is the fifth best state in which to live. But, say Democrats, new challenges are on the horizon. The state’s rate of people without health insurance jumped from its all-time low of 3.8% in 2023 to 5.8% last year. Most concerning is a 72% increase in those 18 and younger who lack health insurance, a total of 62,000 children, according to data from the Minnesota Department of Health.

Share

Oddly enough, there may be common ground in these divergent perspectives. The most thoughtful of both Democrats and Republicans – and there are more than social media and political advertising would ever acknowledge – recognize that Minnesota is a state in the midst of a massive transition. The tax system is a mess and the social services important to the state’s quality of life aren’t keeping pace with the need.

Finding the solutions that bridge the partisan and policy gaps is made more difficult in a legislative body losing its grey-haired experts. Minnesota StarTribune editorial columnist Rochelle Olson hit the nail on the head when she wrote recently, “Passing bills is a messy business, but there’s a gnawing sense that there’s no one at the Capitol willing or able to provide the leadership to get anything of substance done.”

While stalemate often is the reality of an election year, the leadership gap is making things worse today and much worse for the future. Many of the longest-serving legislators have left in recent years and many more will depart after this session. With them go the knowledge and skills needed to forge the collaboration that leads to bold reforms.

The challenge of good public policy that looks to the future can be told in one critical proposal moving through the legislature today. Hennepin County Medical Center is a critical statewide asset. But it is losing money at an unsustainable rate for reasons that just about anyone can understand. HCMC is forced to provide most of its services for less than they cost. About three-quarters of all patients entering HCMC either are uninsured or rely on public health programs. Federal law obligates all hospitals to at least stabilize those who show up in emergency rooms without regard to whether they can pay. And government – unwilling to raise taxes to pay the true cost of health care – reimburses providers below the actual cost of the services.

The legislative proposal is to stem HCMC’s flow of red ink by increasing the Hennepin County sales tax created to pay the construction costs of Target Field from its current .015% to 1%. It’s bad policy for many reasons, but mostly because it doesn’t address the underlying causes of HCMC’s financial woes. HCMC has some of the state’s most sophisticated and advanced care units. The demand for those services is increasing. Short of cooking the books, there is no strategy in which HCMC can lose a little on every sale but make it up on volume.

HCMC is not alone among hospitals facing economic tsunamis and the proposed increase in the Hennepin County sales tax is not unique. The Minnesota Hospital Association estimates that one-third or more of hospitals have operating deficits.

Meanwhile, more counties and communities are turning to sales taxes to bail out their budgets while trying to manage increases in rapidly-rising property taxes. More than 300 local tax jurisdictions now add an average of 0.925% to the state’s rate of 6.875%. In many communities, the total tax is nearing 10%; in two communities, Onamia and Garrison, the tax is 13.375%.

Minnesota faces these kinds of spending and tax dilemmas throughout local and state public policy. Too often, they are resolved by plugging one hole even if doing so creates others for the future. Taken together, they add to taxes, the complexity of government and the on-going erosion of core systems, including education, health delivery and infrastructure. That is, bit by bit these decisions – Republican and Democratic – make Minnesota less competitive and a less desirable place in which to live, work and raise a family.

The state needs another Minnesota Miracle. It needs a committee of big thinkers – policymakers and representatives from academia, business, labor and nonprofits – to start with a clean slate and identify big, bold proposals that would have the greatest impact on restoring Minnesota’s competitiveness and enhancing its quality of life.

This isn’t a commission asked to produce a 10-point plan. Quite the contrary. Force one or two, maybe three, transformative ideas to the top of the list and stop there. The motto should be the old joke about how does one eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

Keep the committee’s work transparent and open to the public. Discussions about innovation often are as valuable as the final recommendation. Give the group sufficient funds to promote its work and publicize its final report. Make this Minnesota Miracle a product of a Minnesota Conversation.

This is the perfect time for such a blue-ribbon committee. Gov. Tim Walz has no re-election agenda hanging over his head. He can ask Republican leaders to join in naming committee members and in committing to giving their recommendations honest and thorough consideration.

The legislature returns to session in January 2026 with a new governor and the election of every member of the House and Senate. It would be great for Minnesota if they also had an agenda that promised a bold future for the state. Who knows? Maybe it would even send sculptors to their studies to prepare to meet the demand from parks around the state for new statutes.

(Image generated by Copilot)

Who else but Donald Trump would think that channeling the ghost of Gen. Curtis “Bombs Away” LeMay might be a compelling reference to sell Americans on the war in Iran?

LeMay, the U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff until conflicts with Defense Secretary Robert McNamara forced his resignation in 1965, is known for his solution to the growing challenge of North Vietnam. LeMay wrote in his autobiography in 1965 that he would tell the leaders of North Vietnam “that they’ve got to draw in their horns and stop their aggression, or we’re going to bomb them back into the Stone Age.”

Trump’s April 1 address to the nation stands as one of the most ineffective presidential speeches in recent history. Were it not for the high stakes of the President’s inept call to action, one would think the April Fools Day speech could only be a joke. And invoking the bombastic LeMay only made Trump’s lies, absurd recounting of history and blame-shifting more ludicrous.

Iran won’t be Vietnam. Trump will declare victory and blame his presidential predecessors, NATO countries and anyone else that comes to his mind. U.S. casualties will be far fewer in Iran than Vietnam, thankfully.

Until then, though, it is worth remembering that Presidents Johnson and Nixon followed LeMay’s strategy even if they didn’t use his words. The bombing was costly and futile. In January 1973, after the U.S. suffered more than 58,000 casualties and Vietnam had lost at least 2 million civilian lives, Nixon addressed the nation to claim the U.S. had won “peace with honor.” He used the phrase three times in a speech of little more than nine minutes. Few believed him.

Share

Trump will have his own “peace with honor” moment, probably sooner rather than later. It will be typically Trumpian: “Best ever peace with honor like no one has ever seen before.”

An empty claim of victory, no matter how bigly, is a declaration of failure. Launching the war, especially without clear objectives, engagement by allies or the support of the American public, was a mistake. The attack is not a sign of U.S. strength, but a recognition of the failure of inexperienced and compromised U.S. negotiators Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff. There is no turning back the clock, however. The U.S. failed to secure the Strait of Hormuz before launching the attack and the world is paying the price.

Trump has yet to define in clear and consistent terms what defines “peace with honor” in the Iranian war. There never has been a doubt that the U.S. military could bomb Iran back to the Stone Age if that is the strategy. But if that is Trump’s goal, he may destroy a country, but not a culture. Iran’s history is 2,500 years old. And that history has taught Persians the value of patience and fortitude. Recovering from adversity is old hat to the Iranian people.

Iran doesn’t need a return to a desolate past as much as the entire Mideast needs a path to a stable, terror-free future. The world needs assurances that critical commodities can move freely through the region. Iran’s neighbors, including Israel, need the confidence that Iran will not be a security threat directly or through proxies.

Those goals are far more likely to be permanently achieved through diplomacy. That will require meaningful concessions from Iran and compromises returned by the U.S. and its allies. The latter might even include an Iranian nuclear program for peaceful purposes if it is well-monitored and accompanied by verified limits on Iran’s production of all weapons.

In a recent column, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman said that Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have made the war “our religious warriors against Iran’s.” That is disastrous not just for the U.S. and Iran, but the world.

The war needs to end, Iran needs to step away from its sponsorship of terror and give up its stockpile of weapons-grade uranium. The U.S. needs to broker peace. The world needs to have Trump listening to people who aren’t invested in war, especially a religious war. The ghost of Curtis LeMay and the “warrior spirit” of Secretary Hegseth are not the voices to whom Trump should be listening.

(Photo: Gen. Curtis LeMay, The New Yorker)

President Donald Trump often seems satisfied with “close enough” when it comes to the right word to describe an event or action. He settles on “excursion” to talk about the Iranian War as if he is sending U.S. military on a leisure cruise. He likely meant “expedition” or “incursion,” but close enough.

So when he now says that “affordability” is a hoax it’s fair to ask if he really means affordability. As anyone - which means just about everyone - who has filled up their car, purchased a pound of ground beef or tried to buy a home knows, affordability is so real it’s painful.

Perhaps President Trump once again is confused. Maybe what he means to say is that “accountability” is a hoax. Now on that point, he has a legitimate case to make. It’s hard to think of a President, an administration or, for that matter, an entire political culture in which accountability was more of a hoax than today.

Share

All this comes to mind with the news this week that Trump’s Department of Justice granted Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn a financial settlement for a crime Flynn admitted and for which he was pardoned by Trump. See how there is one person who is the through line in this abuse of justice?

Two things to keep in mind. First, Flynn pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to FBI agents about conversations he had with Russia’s ambassador, Sergey Kislyak.

Second, the Russian “hoax” isn’t a hoax:

• Secretary of State Marco Rubio served as chair and the top minority member of the Senate Intelligence Committee during its four-year investigation into allegations of Russian propaganda. At the end, Rubio declared there was “irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling” in the 2016 presidential election. The committee determined that Russia interfered to help Trump and harm Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

• The inspector general in Trump’s Department of Justice determined that while the FBI erred in obtaining warrants, it was right to act on credible information of Russian interference.

• Trump’s own 2016 campaign chair Paul Manafort acknowledged that he shared confidential campaign data with Kremlin interests.

• The Republican-led House was so convinced that Russia and other foreign interests had attempted to compromise state election systems that it approved $380 million to help states secure their election infrastructure.

None of this proves that Trump or, for that matter, Flynn, conspired with Russian propagandists to influence the 2016 presidential election. But it does make a strong case that Russia was eager to have Trump win and that Republicans became well aware of the extent to which the Kremlin sought to influence 2016.

What it also says is this: In the conflicted and self-serving world of Donald Trump there is no bigly commitment to accountability. In fact, the absence of accountability is so much the norm that Flynn, an acknowledged perjurer, is paid with tax dollars and the Department of Justice won’t disclose the amount (although reports put the payoff at $1.2 million). The story itself will get a mention today and be gone tomorrow.

The conflicts in this administration are both stunning and costly. They erode trust in institutions and policy. Is President Trump committed to a war in Iran because it is vital to U.S. interests? Or, are decisions influenced by the multi-billion dollar deals Saudi Arabia gives to Trump’s chief negotiators on Mideast issues, deals that personally benefit Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff?

Trump calls an entire group of immigrants “garbage” and accuses them of a massive theft of public dollars. The perpetrators of the fraud rightly are brought to account and punished for their crimes. Yet, Trump has no such standards for the convicted criminals he exonerates. He grants freedom from jail and restitution to many who have stolen billions of dollars from investors and taxpayers (including cases of massive Medicaid and Medicare fraud). Evidence suggests that those granted clemency by Trump cut the right deals with the right attorneys or made “gifts” to political or business interests controlled by the President and his family.

Trump claims the Epstein files totally exonerated him, but has yet to answer questions in any credible forum. He denounces the “witch hunt” that included a search of his Mar-a-Lago fortress even while new evidence claims he publicly displayed classified documents after leaving the White House. He has scammed the public on business finances, his “university” and his charitable foundation, yet many of his supporters see him as the “Chosen One,” a profoundly religious term Trump sometimes uses to describe himself.

When it comes to gaming the justice system, Flynn may only be the point of Trump’s spear. Trump personally is seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer “compensation” for the legal issues he has faced.

So what? one might ask. Trump is Trump. Accountability isn’t in his wheelhouse.

There are two “so whats.” The first is that undermining accountability undermines confidence that government is fair, the courts are unbiased and public officials are looking out for their constituents’ best interests. Certainly, these values have been under attack before Trump; Trump raises the legitimate question of whether the institutions and protocols that support these values can even survive.

Autocrats don’t keep power by eliminating the guardrails of a fair and just society - the institutions of law, an independent media and fair elections - but by corrupting them. Give them the patina of effectiveness while robbing them of the power they derive from having the confidence of the people they serve.

That raises the second issue. The biggest threat to holding Trump and Republicans accountable in the midterm elections is apathy. There are too many people starting to buy the notion that all politicians are alike, that Democrats just have a different brand of excess.

Letting Republicans off the hook by not tossing them out come November is not the way to hold Democrats or anyone else accountable. The strongest message voters can send to both parties is that they are paying attention, they are demanding better politics and policies from all and that they are engaged.

Finding the right word isn’t as important as finding the right values. Voters need to make it abundantly clear that accountability is the word, and it’s not a hoax.

(Photo credit: Democracy Docket)